I got a chuckle out of this piece of internet fluff. Almost posted it in the Kitakidogo Social Club forum. But since I laughed and then cried, I thought I'd share it here and see if it spawned a serious discussion.

I am working my way through "The Utility of Force" at the moment, appreciating its concept of "wars amongst the people," and see this caricature as a satirical spin on a real, real issue.

This is how the Normandy invasion would be reported today. Sounds familiar.

June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America's unilateral invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.

Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, threatening the species with extinction.

A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to big beer," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Protestors said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were allegedly developing a secret weapon, a so-called "atomic bomb." Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany.

Shortly after the invasion began reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by Americans. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored but so far remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion and French officials are concerned that uncollected corpses pose a public health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess and we don't intend to clean it up."

Adam L

07-05-2008, 03:00 PM

That's probably how it would be reported today. It's a very, very serious problem. Here, are a my opinions on this issues causations:
1. People are too trusting of the media and do not seem to have the skills or background knowledge (or ability to find the background knowledge) needed to really evaluate what they are dealing with.
2. What's most alarming is that it is often the most educate (by this I mean a lot of degrees as oppose to actually being "educated") who are most ignorant and gullible in this regard.
3. For many people (especially those mentioned in #2) it is a matter of their desire to feel good about themselves via feeling badly. You can never underestimate how much people will brainwash themselves in order to feel better about themselves, or just in general (note: sometimes people enjoy feeling badly.)
4. Reporters need to go to “journalism school.” Imagine if they just hired a good writer/researcher with understanding of the ethical and legal issues. Imagine if he actually had a strong and broad education that allowed him to have some understanding of what he was looking at. It would be horrible, they might actually get a reporter that reported on what was going on. OMG!
5. They are also practically free from scrutiny. They extend their “journalistic rights”granted to them far beyond their legal limits and protect their own to a reckless and irresponsible degree.
6. Public Journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_journalism)! This is frightening stuff.

Adam L

Gian P Gentile

07-05-2008, 04:52 PM

...and see this caricature as a satirical spin on a real, real issue.

Please define what you see as the "real, real issue" at hand here? I think I know what you are implying but want to be sure before I respond.

gian

Fuchs

07-05-2008, 05:08 PM

It's not even close.
That speculative text is just the expression of a cliché.

Such a distorted view of the reporting originates a lot in the distorted view of a conflict as shared by service members.
Reporters are civilians, and they try to cover the whole story more often than a soldier wants to think about the whole story. It's not surprising that soldiers feel that the reporting is off - it's off their view of the conflict.

Reporters are (wo)men and fallible, in fact my rule of thumb about average newspapers is "1/3 right, 1/3 correct but misses the point and 1/3 wrong".
A regional newspaper chief editor once confirmed to me that journalists are just all-round dilettantes.

But the fictional text above is not anywhere near representative. It's based on a cliché, not on reality.
A realistic fictional text would have included this:
- time
- location
- numbers
- first success indicators/reports
- expected casualty range (official and/or "experts" guesses)
- key statements of the press conference/release, probably a quote
- mention of the supreme commander of the operation by name and rank
- probably an improvised map
- at least one photo, for example of a sky full of combat aircraft
- mention of an impressively destructive bombardment that leaves little chance of survival
- some very despising words about the enemy (OK, maybe "fascists" or "Nazis" would have been despising enough)
- outlook on what the operation might cause in the medium term

Journalists write about environmental hazards of military actions/hardware when they've got no better stories.

They usually don't jump on the very first stories of civilian casualties and war crimes, but instead there's a threshold: If too much happens, they're fed up and begin to report about it, taking examples and emphasize these few examples (which then seems out of proportion to uniformed personnel, of course).
Foreign (neutral or unfriendly nations') press is of course a bit or drastically more unfriendly towards military operations (lower or no thresholds).

Ken White

07-05-2008, 06:01 PM

It's not even close.
That speculative text is just the expression of a cliché.Uh, yeah -- the text is also satire. Broad, yes but still satire.
Reporters are (wo)men and fallible, in fact my rule of thumb about average newspapers is "1/3 right, 1/3 correct but misses the point and 1/3 wrong".

A regional newspaper chief editor once confirmed to me that journalists are just all-round dilettantes.Wwe can agree on the latter. With regard to the former I can essentially agree but would point out that those figures effectively make them wrong 2/3 of the time...
They usually don't jump on the very first stories of civilian casualties and war crimes, but instead there's a threshold: If too much happens, they're fed up and begin to report about it, taking examples and emphasize these few examples (which then seems out of proportion to uniformed personnel, of course).Agreed. However, their threshold is as subject to their bias as are the uniformed personnel to their biases.
Foreign (neutral or unfriendly nations') press is of course a bit or drastically more unfriendly towards military operations (lower or no thresholds).True. Thus the invitation to broad satire... :D

Adam L

07-05-2008, 07:20 PM

That's probably how it would be reported today.

With the direction this thread seems to be heading I want to make sure everyone knows I was joking when I said that.

Thanks,
Adam L

Fuchs

07-05-2008, 07:31 PM

With the direction this thread seems to be heading I want to make sure everyone knows I was joking when I said that.

Thanks,
Adam L

Yeah, OK.
But I've heard such comments before, and they were meant more seriously.

Adam L

07-05-2008, 08:35 PM

Yeah, OK.
But I've heard such comments before, and they were meant more seriously.

Look, I see we obviously have very different opinons of the media. I do not view the media in general at all favorably these days. It's next to impossible to find anything resembling the news on television. Even the BBC is pretty bad. Part of the problem is a good 50% of everything shown is not newsworthy. The newspapers (I can only speak as to US/Canadian papers) are in about the same shape in my opinon. I've usually been a NYT/WSJ reader, but the NYT has taken a nose dive the last decade or so. (especially the last 5 years) I think I should point out that my disdain for the media is independent of my opinions on how they are covering conflicts world wide. Their coverage of all matters is most often quite dreadful in my opinion.

Adam L

RTK

07-05-2008, 11:06 PM

Look, I see we obviously have very different opinons of the media. I do not view the media in general at all favorably these days. It's next to impossible to find anything resembling the news on television. Even the BBC is pretty bad. Part of the problem is a good 50% of everything shown is not newsworthy. The newspapers (I can only speak as to US/Canadian papers) are in about the same shape in my opinon. I've usually been a NYT/WSJ reader, but the NYT has taken a nose dive the last decade or so. (especially the last 5 years) I think I should point out that my disdain for the media is independent of my opinions on how they are covering conflicts world wide. Their coverage of all matters is most often quite dreadful in my opinion.

Adam L

It's not just isolated to American media. My favorites list on my browser has 22 American media outlets, from my smalltown boyhood news rag to the big 3 networks and other big 3 cable news networks. I look at all 22 each day because I'm not sure what to believe. So I take snipits of each, look for common themes and figure I'm getting the 70% solution of the facts.

Additionally, I have 27 media sites, to include a search engine for all the world's online newspapers, for countries outside the US. These include BBC, Sky, Der Spiegel, IHT, Tehran Times, The Kurdistani, NPRK propeganda, etc...

I read because I'm interested in what the other views are as well. However, some of the writing, even through the translation, of some of the other media outlets in the world is even more slanted than the famous FoxNews v. CNN. One only needs to look at the Palestine Times v. Jerusalem Post.

Spud

07-06-2008, 12:13 AM

Personally I'm all for the cartoon version

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/DDay/images/lester.gif

Adam L

07-06-2008, 01:38 AM

Personally I'm all for the cartoon version

:DLOL! SPUD, YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD! I LOVE THAT CARTOON! LOL!:D

Sorry, about that. I just watched Patton. :cool:

Adam L

Entropy

07-06-2008, 02:25 AM

The big difference between WWII and today is that censorship is pretty much impossible today - or at least very, very difficult. In WWII there wasn't any independent media in the sense we think of it today to say nothing of all the varied ways of collecting and disseminating information.

And IMO we are still in a transition period. How long until CNN and Fox have their own UAV fleets to bring us live coverage of the latest battle, catastrophy or tragedy? Or their own imagery satellites? Or who knows what?

Adam L

07-06-2008, 03:15 AM

And IMO we are still in a transition period. How long until CNN and Fox have their own UAV fleets to bring us live coverage of the latest battle, catastrophy or tragedy? Or their own imagery satellites? Or who knows what?

They could have it now if they wanted it. I just don't think profits would improve significantly enough to offset the expense. It would not surprise me if they wanted to bring TV journalism into a new era of voyeurism. Actually, I think we may already be there. :(

Adam L

Schmedlap

07-06-2008, 03:17 AM

I don't even own a TV and, thus, I do not watch any of the cable news channels. I primarily get my news from the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, though I also read feeds from several others sources via an RSS reader. It is amazing how much more refreshing life is when you do not have an infobabe telling you about some new crisis everyday (missing 10-year-old girl, jailed celebrity, skyrocketing ATM fees, hardships of choosing between a 42" plasma screen TV or health insurance, etc).

Sometimes I feel as though I am poorly informed because I miss out on Jack Cafferty reading email rants from "Bob in Ohio" or "Nancy in Seattle" about whatever lowest common denominator, populist load of crap that we're attempting to rile people up over today.

Just out of curiosity, is the Today show still classified as news? I saw a few minutes of it at my parent's house last week. There was no news reported, but there was an outdoor concert, fashion tips for the 4th of July, a new recipe for chicken, and some chit-chat with people who were screaming and holding signs while trying to get on camera outside of the studio.

Adam L

07-06-2008, 03:23 AM

I don't even own a TV and, thus, I do not watch any of the cable news channels. I primarily get my news from the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, though I also read feeds from several others sources via an RSS reader. It is amazing how much more refreshing life is when you do not have an infobabe telling you about some new crisis everyday (missing 10-year-old girl, jailed celebrity, skyrocketing ATM fees, hardships of choosing between a 42" plasma screen TV or health insurance, etc).

Sometimes I feel as though I am poorly informed because I miss out on Jack Cafferty reading email rants from "Bob in Ohio" or "Nancy in Seattle" about whatever lowest common denominator, populist load of crap that we're attempting to rile people up over today.

Just out of curiosity, is the Today show still classified as news? I saw a few minutes of it at my parent's house last week. There was no news reported, but there was an outdoor concert, fashion tips for the 4th of July, a new recipe for chicken, and some chit-chat with people who were screaming and holding signs while trying to get on camera outside of the studio.

Makes you wonder about the state of civilization doesn't it? Either that, or if we are living in a science fiction novel. Is it just me or does it seem like some of the sci-fi stories are turning into reality? :(

Adam L

Steve Blair

07-06-2008, 03:29 PM

Please define what you see as the "real, real issue" at hand here? I think I know what you are implying but want to be sure before I respond.

gian

Or define what you see as the issue, since at the end of the day many issues are in fact a meeting between a number of individual interpretations of that issue. My own news grazing is something of a cross between RTKs and Schmedlap's (I have this major issue with coughing up about $100 a month to watch three channels, so no cable for this household), and I do find that there is a clarity of spin when you aren't saturated with outlets.

And as far as I'm concerned, The Today Show isn't news. Of course, Entertainment Tonight also claims to be news, so go figure....:eek:

selil

07-06-2008, 04:07 PM

....I do not view the media in general at all favorably these days. It's next to impossible to find anything resembling the news on television. ....

That and many of the other criticisms in this thread of the main stream media are created by an expectation gap of reality and fantasy. The fantasy is that for Americans in general the news organizations exist to provide factual representation of a dialog in politics and events. The reality is that there is no such rule or expectation. The first amendment protects political speech along with expression (just ask Larry Flynt) for the media, person walking down the street, or even crazy people outside military funerals.

The media in general (CNN to CBS) does not exist to provide balanced reporting. The expectation since Ben Franklin and the Federalist Papers is that there will be spin, cajoling, coordinated yellow screaming, nasty pitiful arrogant, caustic spin in the reporting to bend the will of the people. You don't have to like it but as Hurst said you go report it and I'll start the war (something like that).

Let's talk about the evening news. The early growth of the television market created this fantasy of balanced journalism. Whether we are talking about Walter Cronkite "The most trusted man in America", or Edward R. Murro "Goodnight and Goodluck" chasing the evil pixies of Macarthyism the reality is they all had biases. It is just people agreed with their biases. Who in the world would expect 18 minutes of content at an average of 45 seconds per story, 3 minutes for the big head line of the day, to have any relevance what so ever? Most of the Internet content from large media outlets is simply regurgitated hash done the same way because that is what they do. Only opinion pages are not given short shrift, and all of the large media outlets have shut down post-broadcast editorials. No more Edward Murro challenging our intellect or politics.

The editorial boards of most news organizations are egotistical, sycophantic, arrogant, back stabbing, advertiser driven, petty groups who see the world through a myopic view of journalistic furor. Rather than consider them the spinners of lies and untruths it is the volume of sifting and the shallow level they think that is the problem. Most of the news organizations have cut their staffs to near zero, the regurgitate AP and Reuters like great truth, and people drink even more from the desiccated teat of information.

The blogosphere isn't much better. I look at the top rated blogs by technocrati and other rating systems and what are they doing? They are rehashing AP and Reuters creating commentary on the stories in a vacuum of self censure and egoism. Most blogs take the mindless chatter and spew it forth just the same as the news organizations only with opinion embedded. The primary value of such being their nature to aggregate stories. There are very few places like Small Wars Journal that creates content that has had peer review layered to mitigate the mind numbing baseless arrogance found in the main stream media.

All of that said the media is working with one caveat exactly as planned. The signal to noise ratio is unbalanced by the existence of media conglomerates and centralized ownership. This creates an echo chamber of ideas as owners pick and choose staff based on their own biases. The public has a tendency to gravitate towards the agent they agree with rather than the one that provides better reporting. Thus we see diatribes against The Clinton Network News (CNN), and the I won't say it (FOX) news organizations. Yet that is still how it should be. Debate with out rancor is a fine thing to wish for, but I wish to be good looking and young again too.

Hopefully in the cauldron of the media we can still find the nugget of information, but it isn't that people are stupid, or that the media is inappropriately biased, or that people have no critical thinking skills, or that people are dumber than they used to be, or perhaps that there is a left/right wing conspiracy, but it is true that things in the media space should be uncomfortable.

There is a wide gap between the fantasy of fair-balanced media and the reality of the humans and systems. It isn't that it is broken as quite the contrary it is working just the way it should. The speech and expression that makes us the most uncomfortable is likely the most protected speech just for that reason. The real fear is not that they do their job poorly in the main stream media but that they stop doing their job all together. That job is not to get the facts straight but to get the point across. Those are two different goals. As indoctrinated as we Americans are all to this fantasy concept of fair-balanced media it is difficult to accept, but it says no where in the first Amendment does it say fair/balanced/truth. It is freedom of speech/press that is protected not their veracity.

You really don't want to watch a factual news broadcast where they tell you the water in the flood zone has risen 3 feet due to three bazillion gallons per minute flow rate, and increasing. Instead the story is broadcast as the toll on the living and dying and the reach into the lives of the effected. The compelling story is the suffering which is where we get "If it bleeds it leads" and other disaffected stories.

One final thing. Censorship is always the last bastion of those who have lost an argument and the first step toward evil. Agree, disagree, but as long as the debate is in the open sooner or later the fallacious nature found in either argument will be shown. There is no practical limit on freedom of speech beyond slander, libel, and (argh) copyright. There is likely way to much restriction currently on freedom of speech from self censorship found in the political correctness movement. Today society is much more civil and as a result filled with much more drivel than in the 1960s. As a point where are the true scallawags of the media today? I can't find a Hunter S. Thompson, or Kerouac (chosen as opposites).

It is the nature of the soldier to try and control that which could harm. Huntington and other talk about the civil military relations and a big part of that is media. MountainRunner has an entire BLOG about the media and the government. The reality is that the soldier should have a perspective that is slightly onerous toward the media as at no point in American history has the media given the military a free ride. Love the soldiers, hate the war, is no dichotomy to the journalist. It is highly incongruous to the soldier to say you love them, and then vilify their work. However, it is no less damning to the military member to vilify an entire amendment to the Constitution, by crying censor the bastards, then it is publicly support a particular presidential candidate. In a flip of the journalist credo the soldier can say hate the journalists, love the right to freedom of expression. Which should drive most journalists just as crazy as they do the military.

Surferbeetle

07-06-2008, 04:38 PM

Sam,

Nice post.

Regards

Steve

Schmedlap

07-06-2008, 05:13 PM

That and many of the other criticisms in this thread of the main stream media are created by an expectation gap of reality and fantasy. The fantasy is that for Americans in general the news organizations exist to provide factual representation of a dialog in politics and events. The reality is that there is no such rule or expectation.

I think that is correct for cable channels but not for the networks or even many newspapers. I think most people assume that the network news and local newspaper are filling the role of journalist, rather than of pundit, partisan, or entertainer. The networks and newspapers seem to embrace that image of the professional journalist, even though many of them are not.

I don't fault CNN, FOX, or MSNBC for the drivel that they peddle. It is tabloid entertainment for people who have an interest in politics and I think that most viewers understand the bias of each channel. They need to sell advertising space. Political ideology is an effective way for them to segment their market. And I may be wrong, but I don't think that the cable news channels try to convince anyone that they are legitimate journalists. Even FOX's "fair and balanced" motto is aimed directly at conservatives who have long been irked by what they perceive as a left-leaning bias in the media. No leftist believes that FOX is fair and balanced. Most regular conservative viewers do, and that is why they watch it. MSNBC has staked out its ground on the left with Olbermann, Matthews, et al. CNN, partially in response to a left-leaning competitor and the growth of FOX seems to be trying to obtain a piece of the middle and center-right with the populist hysteria of Dobbs and Cafferty and the conservative Beck. The cable channels pride themselves on interviews with big-name pundits, eye-pleasing sets and effects, infobabes who are easy on the eyes, and continuous coverage of a narrow range of issues that are of interest to their left/right target audience.

The cable channels like to emphasize "24/7" and "the biggest guests" and "immediate coverage." The networks, on the other hand, like to highlight the trust and professionalism of their anchor or their reporter in the field. "News you can trust" and "experience" is more the theme of the networks. And that is my beef with the networks.

Culpeper

07-06-2008, 05:19 PM

I posted that somewhere myself once. Not sure where. But it is a nice spoof on today's press.:D

The Truth:

"This is a war and it must be expected that people will be killed..We would take twice the anticipated loss to be rid of the Germans"

-- French Major General Pierre Koenig, de Gaul's head of French forces in Britain, in response to Churchill's nail biting over French civilian casualties before Operation Overlord.

Culpeper

07-06-2008, 05:35 PM

The networks, on the other hand, like to highlight the trust and professionalism of their anchor or their reporter in the field. "News you can trust" and "experience" is more the theme of the networks. And that is my beef with the networks.

At the risk of quoting out of context. Walter Cronkite, in the days of three channels, incorrectly and devastatingly, reported that the war in Southeast Asia was lost after the Tet Offensive. He spoke too soon with devastating results based on no evidence. The VC and NVA lost the offensive. They won the hearts and minds of the American public thanks to Cronkite himself who should be held accountable for sensationalism that cost the lives of a lot of Americans.

It is almost impossible for America to win a war with today's press without some sort of censorship. I think the government has done a good job keeping the press in the so-called "Green Zone". If these morons ventured out into the streets there is no telling where we would be right now. Same goes for Afghanistan. What has changed a lot since Vietnam, and occurred mostly during the wars in eastern Europe during the 90s, was the real risk of reporters getting killed at a higher rate than Vietnam. The other side really don't care about the war correspondents' well being any longer. Sure, a lot of reporters were killed in Vietnam. Keeping them out of the way and behind a desk, or rather, under a desk, is better than the old days when there were reporters with some courage and lack of backbone to tell the truth opting instead to report based sensationalism. Like the invisible hand of supply and demand in economics leaving the press to fend for themselves in a war zone will take care of a lot of sensationalism that could have a negative effect on the outcome of a conflict. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Ken White

07-06-2008, 05:52 PM

everyone is entitled to my opinion... :D

Sam is correct and as Charlie said, it's a good post.

Schmedlap is also correct and both his posts were good.

Between the two I seem to fall. I don't watch TV and do not miss it; I check maybe 30-40 sources worldwide a week on the internet and manage to stay reasonably abreast of what's happening. I remain sadly disappointed in the quality of today's journalism as I compare it to the quality of forty or fifty years ago. There's no comparison. The issue is greater than the bottom line of the entertainment industry that owns TV 'News' because the total lack of seriousness and the celebrity focus is also present in most broadsheet newspapers -- it, is I think, an issue of a (wrongful) belief in the majesty of the media and their (equally wrong IMO) assessment that they are giving the public what the public wants. They may be but no one from my ten year old niece up to random waiters and cashiers to some of my older than I am friends seems to agree with them on that score; thus I'm unsure where they get that...

I think (though I might have missed it in the thread) what is not said is the terrible ignorance of most of the reporting media types. Not all, there are some great ones out there but the majority of reporters IMO exhibit an astounding lack of knowledge about most subjects. The natural mildly left bias of most journalists, particularly the junior editor and producers is not a problem, that can be filtered. Ignorance cannot be filtered and a lack of clarity in reporting or editing can create wrongful assumptions on the part of readers or viewers.

Seems to me that just as the Education community is wrong to insist on Ed. degrees for K-12 (sorry, Sam ;) ) the jorno commune is wrong to insist on journalism degrees for their practitioners. Makes no difference how great your presentation is if you aren't imparting knowledge. :(

Then, if one has none, it's difficult to impart...

Adam L

07-06-2008, 06:10 PM

Seems to me that just as the Education community is wrong to insist on Ed. degrees for K-12 (sorry, Sam ;) ) the jorno commune is wrong to insist on journalism degrees for their practitioners. Makes no difference how great your presentation is if you aren't imparting knowledge. :(

Then, if one has none, it's difficult to impart...

Exactly how I feel. Well said.

Adam L

selil

07-06-2008, 07:11 PM

Seems to me that just as the Education community is wrong to insist on Ed. degrees for K-12 (sorry, Sam ;) ) the jorno commune is wrong to insist on journalism degrees for their practitioners. Makes no difference how great your presentation is if you aren't imparting knowledge. :(
Then, if one has none, it's difficult to impart...

No apology needed Ken, in that a chemistry teacher in high school should have a degree in chemistry and a certificate in education. Rather than the degree in education and the (often lack of) certificate in chemistry. K-elementary I think the education degree is fine but when you go to classes based on content instead of education (intermediate, middle, junior, high school) the teacher should be at least a fair expert in their field.

When looking at reporter credentials for reporting the news one of the watch dog groups found that the weather channel had the most relevant training/education/reporting ratios with most of their reporters having meteorology degrees.

There is more to the story though than rampant anti-intellectualism on one hand and the pseudo credentialism on the other hand. The media and the issues with society are no less complex than civil military issues. The censorship rampant in the reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan with the associated cacophony of complaints is a warning of peril. Whereas democracy and capitalism have nothing to do with each other a free press is a corner stone to democracy.

patmc

07-06-2008, 07:31 PM

That's why they are always able to cover all the hot spots around the world.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

When looking at reporter credentials for reporting the news one of the watch dog groups found that the weather channel had the most relevant training/education/reporting ratios with most of their reporters having meteorology degrees.

Schmedlap

07-06-2008, 07:47 PM

The censorship rampant in the reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan with the associated cacophony of complaints is a warning of peril. Whereas democracy and capitalism have nothing to do with each other a free press is a corner stone to democracy.

Who is being censored and by whom?

Surferbeetle

07-06-2008, 08:28 PM

everyone is entitled to my opinion... :D

Sam is correct and as Charlie said, it's a good post.

Schmedlap is also correct and both his posts were good.

Between the two I seem to fall. I don't watch TV and do not miss it; I check maybe 30-40 sources worldwide a week on the internet and manage to stay reasonably abreast of what's happening. I remain sadly disappointed in the quality of today's journalism as I compare it to the quality of forty or fifty years ago. There's no comparison.

From the July 6th 2008 FT (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0263e5a-4b52-11dd-a490-000077b07658.html)

For decades the educational quality of the US labour force surged. In 1940, less than 5 per cent of the population aged 25-64 had at least a four-year college education. By 2000, the proportion had increased to nearly 30 per cent. Successive generations of workers improved on the educational attainments of their predecessors. Retiring workers were replaced by better-educated youngsters. This remorseless accumulation of human capital helped fuel the country’s postwar growth. According to at least one authoritative study, it was the principal driver.

This trend came to a halt with workers now aged 55-59. Younger cohorts are no better educated than these soon-to-retire boomers. Broadly speaking, educational quality has topped out – and on at least one measure, it is actually deteriorating. In 2006, Americans aged 55-59 collectively possessed more masters degrees, professional degrees and doctorates than Americans aged 30-34. This impending loss of educational capital is entirely outside the country’s experience.

Yet one key indicator suggests real cause for concern: the declining high school graduation rate, which affects the supply of those seeking to go to college. This too has been a bitterly contested statistic in the US. The country’s highly decentralised education system causes a proliferation of conflicting data sources and definitions. But a recent careful study by Nobel laureate James Heckman and Paul LaFontaine found that the high school graduation rate “has been falling for 40 years” and that this “explains part of the recent slowdown in college attendance”.

Ken,

Best,

Steve

walrus

07-06-2008, 08:32 PM

In Rupert Murdoch's world of media, most of it is entertainment designed to attract viewers and advertising revenue. That's what drives it.

Unfortunately very few people in America value truth and learning about difficult and hard to comprehend topics. True, there still are old fashioned investigative reporters, that produce good work but there seems to be little interest from the general public in their work. What they want, and get, in the way of "news" is pre-processed sixty second sound bites. That's why Fox News has an audience.

There is anecdotal evidence for the dumbing down of Americans as well, but whether this is a result of rotten media or rotten education is unclear. The result is the same, Britney commands more attention then the design of a global greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme.

As for the French satire, as satire goes, it's funny. The reality though is that the situation of the French and Hitler's evil were written large enough to make it perfectly obvious to anyone alive at the time that there was going to be collateral damage.

When someone does write the history of the American media during the Iraq war, it's going to be a tale of complicity in carefully spreading the Bush Administrations orchestrated litany of lies regarding weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify the war in the first place. Mere gullibility doesn't explain it.

I have about forty web pages that I browse for news, and I normally check the history of the reporters themselves if a particularly sensational report appears. The last one I checked was Daniel Foggo, whose piece today about Iran purchasing African monkeys is now being morphed into an Iranian bio - weapons campaign. For the record, Foggo appears to be a trustworthy source and I think one can safely assume that Iran purchases monkeys. All else is speculation.

selil

07-06-2008, 08:40 PM

Who is being censored and by whom?

There are a variety of ways to create censorship and thereby create an information conduit more conducive to the vagaries of conflict. The embed and pool concepts "allowed" by the military are a form of censorship. Tight control on the activities of reporters and thereby creating bias from refusing to allow flag dropped coffins shown, or embargoing stories because they are embarassing, up to and including charging journalists as spies all causes issues. But, don't take my word for it.

Media Under Fire: Reporting Conflict in Iraq (http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/cib/2002-03/03cib21.htm) Australian Government Document

This is likely the best document covering the ground of censorship, media involvement, and honest appraisal of the US Government tactics to make the war more palatable to the American public.

This article looks at the social aspects of the journalists and war in an in depth view that though I feel biased is fairly tactful in the treatment.

The issue is large, it is difficult, it is not a pretty, nor is it easy to understand. A simple epithet or slogan will not cover it, nor make it easier to understand. I find that to many people are more interested in finding evidence to support their position right or wrong than trying to discover the depth of the issue and the breadth of a solution. Media relations, and "handling" by commanders in a war zone, cuts a broad swath across the trust and relationship of the people and the military.

There is a broad anti-media sentiment in the members of the military. From the Pentagon Papers, to the Vietnam War, back to the befuddled Air Force and their Boeing contract the relationship between military service and media reporting has not been nice. It would be easy for me personally to say, "Screw the media, hang em all, let god sort em' out". You deserve better than a weak kneed echo chamber of popular shenanigans.

The military-civil discourse and media abandonment enjoyed in the early stages of the Iraq war has begun to erode in the waning of support for the commander in chief, the congress, and the established organizations and departments. If you look at the dates of the articles posted the bias from the Australian article to the sociology article is not in the authors perceptions but the dilation of time. The one is from five years ago and the other this spring.

Censorship is recognized not only the blocking of a story but in the acquisition of information to fully inform a story. Sunshine laws, FOIA and so many other access methods/laws are there to insure that the public is informed rather than blockaded. The military has used the blockade/embargo method in Iraq to great utility. It will breakdown if popular pressure from media outlets leads to "adventure" journalism and the reporting styles, as inelegant as they were, found in Vietnam.

Surferbeetle

07-06-2008, 08:43 PM

Unfortunately very few people in America value truth and learning about difficult and hard to comprehend topics.

The embed and pool concepts "allowed" by the military are a form of censorship. Tight control on the activities of reporters and thereby creating bias from refusing to allow flag dropped coffins shown, or embargoing stories because they are embarassing, up to and including charging journalists as spies all causes issues.

I think we should remember that the "tight control" is a condition of special access. If I go on a tour of the White House and certain rooms are off limits, then I don't claim that the secret service is restricting my freedom of movement. And if they say no cameras are allowed, then I don't get huffy about not being able to post photos on my blog and claim that my first amendment rights are being violated.

But even if the instances mentioned are censorship, I think that begs the question of whether all censorship is bad. The article that you linked spends a fair amount of time discussing the embeds in the early stages of OIF. I think the embedding rules were due to OPSEC concerns on one hand and a desire to increase exposure of our troops to the media on the other. Limit information that could imperil our operations and increase access of our Soldiers to the media. I don't think that is bad. I don't even think that it is censorship.

Regarding flag-draped coffins, this also seems like a fairly reasonable limit on media activity while they are hanging around with us. Had I been killed in Iraq, I wouldn't have wanted my flag-draped coffin on the front page of any newspaper, helping some media outlet to sell its rag. Is that censorship, if we have given them access to the cargo aircraft and simply put a condition on that access? I don't think so. But, even if it is censorship, it seems reasonable.

Also, my understanding of the embed procedures is that reporters could have run off into the desert with no protection from the US military when the war kicked off. But we were willing to accomodate them if they played by certain ground rules. I don't think that is censorship. Once we got to Baghdad, I came across plenty of reporters who were out on their own, not embedded. I suspect that is less common today because they prefer the protection of US troops. I don't think that is censorship either.

Now if a reporter is wandering alone around in Baghdad, gets some footage of US troops doing something wrong, tries to email it back to his news bureau, and our counterintelligence folks intercept the email and delete it - that would be censorship and not the type that I would approve of. Maybe it happens - I don't know. But the flag-draped coffins and embed rules are a far cry from censorship - or even from concern - in my opinion.

Culpeper

07-06-2008, 09:25 PM

Wow! It's just lampoonery.:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGp0hCxSg98

Ken White

07-06-2008, 10:09 PM

Selil said:
"...The media and the issues with society are no less complex than civil military issues. The censorship rampant in the reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan with the associated cacophony of complaints is a warning of peril. Whereas democracy and capitalism have nothing to do with each other a free press is a corner stone to democracy.True but the responsiblity for much of that does nor reside solely with the government or the armed forces. Your later post on the same topic is also good but as you say it is a quite complex issue and it is emphatically not all one-sided.

Many in the media have an attitude problem; many in the armed forces have an attitude problem -- result: Major friction. I don't disagree with what you say but my perception is that the armed forces are more willing to bend then is the media.

I'll admit to some bias, I got misquoted in Korea, the Dominican Republic and in Viet Nam, all of little importance but a misquote is a misquote. I also had two major conflicts with a newspaper and a TV guy in Viet Nam. My son had reporters about on occasion in both Afghanistan and Iraq -- but only occasionally; they come, stay a few days and leave. His perception is that the attitude problem I cited is pretty severe; as he says distrust by the media is one thing -- acute dislike is another. That kind of attitude and a tendency to be condescending to the troops leads to thing like this (LINK) (http://www.blackfive.net/main/capt.dv11511171658.iraq_dv115.jpg); note the signaling individual is not a senior military type...

Far more to it than attempts to censor and skew the news on the part of the Armed Forces. I agree with your concern for a constructive and vigilant free press -- we don't have that. I wish we did and I'm quite sure the reason that we do not is not all the fault of any government or anyone's armed forces...

Steve posted a link from the FT. Thanks. Reinforces the trend I've noted in the last few years exemplified by the climbing rate of female advanced degrees and the declining rate of makes with them -- and baccalaureate degrees as well. Does not bode well.

Schmedlap disagrees that restricting picture of returning flag draped coffins is censorship. I do also. Not to get a semantic argument going but whether it's censorship or not, it's an okay policy. YMMV. With a kid who's had three tours and will soon get another, I agree with the policy. I'll also note that if he got zapped, the local media would cover it as they have hundreds of others (you can also check You Tube). Any body wants to see flag draped coffins, there are plenty of them out there -- so to me it's not an issue of censorship, it's an issue of imposed good taste on a 'profession' (and I use the word loosely) that proves on a daily basis they have no taste. Nor very much competence.

oblong

07-06-2008, 11:53 PM

Seems to me that just as the Education community is wrong to insist on Ed. degrees for K-12 (sorry, Sam ) the jorno commune is wrong to insist on journalism degrees for their practitioners.

I've never worked in broadcast, so I can't speak to their requirements. But I've worked in print for more than 20 years - everything from small-town dailies to a major newspaper to national magazines - and I can recall only one person I worked with who had a journalism degree. He went back to school after working for a few years and got a master's in journalism aftrer getting his bachelor's in, IIRC, political science.

By far, the top three majors among people I've worked with - or at least the ones I've known well enough to talk to about these matters, are history, English and political science. But I've known people with degrees in economics, psychology and business administration.

I went to a college with one of the top journalism programs in the U.S., but even on the student newspaper, I can recall only a couple of journalism majors. Most of the J-school students I knew were either in broadcast or were looking at careers photography, design, layout or PR.

Ken White

07-07-2008, 01:00 AM

I have two nephews and know the son of a friend with journalism degrees; two of the three are working in print (the other is a salesman). All are fairly decent kids -- but their lack of knowledge of how their government works at all levels is scary. Regrettably, none of the three will ever win a prize for drive or a work ethic...

I did base my broad stereotype on TV based on anecdotal evidence that many of the budding reporters tend to have a major in the field. However, I didn't clarify that. That and the propensity in that medium to stick a mike in the face of "Joe Smith - Witness" and ask inane questions gives me a probably jaundiced view.

Given your experience, I do have a question. I can understand the TV folks concentration on the here and now and on so-called celebrities; the Entertainment industry likes the exposure. However, the broadsheets when I was younger seemed more serious, tended to put more depth in stories and articles and appeared less likely to push the latest fad or scandal. My impression is that has changed. You may or may not agree; if you do, I have no real idea why that would be so other than the TV folks are driving the news effort by accident or by design. any thoughts?

oblong

07-07-2008, 03:23 AM

I had composed a much longer answer, but for some reason my attempt to post it failed, and I didn't think to save it.

A shorter answer is that I think you are right.

Newspapers today are in a fierce competition for eyeballs. We are competing with dozens of TV channels, including several news channels, the Internet, computer games, etc.

Management isn't really sure how to deal with this. Many of them are dealing with it in ways I consider to be short-sighted. But they are under tremendous pressure from owners to maintain profit margins of 20, 25 or 30 percent.

Ken White

07-07-2008, 04:00 AM

national foible of concentration of effort on the upcoming quarter is not helpful in any field of endeavor (my weekly understatement...). we're ruining ourselves with that inability to look and think ahead.

I've often wished that when the founding writers wrote, they'd have added in another adaptation from the Iroquois -- A requirement to consider the impact of actions for seven generations in the future.

I spent my early years in Louisville and I can remember what a great paper the Courier Journal before the Binghams went off the rails (and Gannet got hold of it). I look at it today and just cringe. Lived in New York for a while in '54-55, that NYT and todays are very different. The dumbing down of America has long fingers...

One of my Grandfathers was a small town weekly owner, publisher and editor for many years; he said back in the early 50s that TV would eventually destroy print journalism; he figured 100 years. May have been right -- until the Internet popped up. :(

SWCAdmin

07-07-2008, 11:43 AM

Please define what you see as the "real, real issue" at hand here? I think I know what you are implying but want to be sure before I respond.
That the role of the media and its interaction with both society and conflict is a) huge b) dramatically accelerated from a generation or two ago (just more? or fundamentally different?).

Again, this specific satire just floated past me. Concur w/ Fuchs, the author needs to go back to satirical journalism school before landing the war desk at the Onion. I don't put it forward to advocate for or skewer whatever leaning anyone infers from it, but simply because it will cause so many to infer. Please continue to do so, fascinating observations, looking forward to yours, too, Gian.

marct

07-07-2008, 03:01 PM

You know, there are some interesting assumptions operating here that haven't been pulled out and probably should be. First is the actual question of responsibilities - of the media, of the citizen, of the soldier. There appears to be an assumption that he citizen should "educate" themselves on current issues both via "formal" education and via the media. Second, that the role of the media is to act as a watchdog; uncovering what is going on that is (possibly) being hidden from the public. Third, that soldiers will, inevitably, practice some form of if not "censorship", then at least deception.

What I find fascinating is that none of these role-responsibility assumptions, barring a limited form of the third one, is backed up by any social structural factors. Citizens are nor rewarded (or punished) for their knowledge; indeed, for the past 70 years or so, there has been a progressive structural emphasis to "domesticate" citizens in order to make them more "predictable" for advertising, either political of corporate. The media are economically punished for taking the time to do a really good, in-depth job of analyzing issues (that "quest for eyeballs" problem). At the same time, academics are also punished for doing the same if it steps outside of the broad boardaries of the politically acceptable (not, necessarily, the same thing as Politically Correct; see here (http://www.hirhome.com/bio.htm) for an example). Finally, soldiers are structurally required to limit information that, in many instances, goes well beyond the actual requirements of OPSEC (cf Lt. Gen. Caldwell's comments here (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/02/changing-the-organizational-cu-1/)).

Part of the problem, I suspect, is the idealistic nature of a chunk of your (US) assumptions, especially those related to the idea of an invisible hand operating in the information/political economy. Personally, I think it is naive to assume that the media will not be co-opted by political and economic factions with specific agendas. Their entire livelihood is based on their ability to compete in the (supposedly) "free market" of information reporting. But where does the money come from?

This is why I believe that the blogsphere, and sites like SWC, are so important. The structural impetus is not crudely economic in the "I do X, you pay me Y" sense of the term. It is a much better example of a "free market" of information than anything that shows up in the MSM.

*****
just got a link to this which I think makes part of my argument for me...

L.A. Times to Cut 250 jobs, 150 in newsroom (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25503624/).

Tom Odom

07-07-2008, 03:38 PM

You know, there are some interesting assumptions operating here that haven't been pulled out and probably should be. First is the actual question of responsibilities - of the media, of the citizen, of the soldier. There appears to be an assumption that he citizen should "educate" themselves on current issues both via "formal" education and via the media. Second, that the role of the media is to act as a watchdog; uncovering what is going on that is (possibly) being hidden from the public. Third, that soldiers will, inevitably, practice some form of if not "censorship", then at least deception.

What I find fascinating is that none of these role-responsibility assumptions, barring a limited form of the third one, is backed up by any social structural factors. Citizens are nor rewarded (or punished) for their knowledge; indeed, for the past 70 years or so, there has been a progressive structural emphasis to "domesticate" citizens in order to make them more "predictable" for advertising, either political of corporate. The media are economically punished for taking the time to do a really good, in-depth job of analyzing issues (that "quest for eyeballs" problem). At the same time, academics are also punished for doing the same if it steps outside of the broad boardaries of the politically acceptable (not, necessarily, the same thing as Politically Correct; see here (http://www.hirhome.com/bio.htm) for an example). Finally, soldiers are structurally required to limit information that, in many instances, goes well beyond the actual requirements of OPSEC (cf Lt. Gen. Caldwell's comments here (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/02/changing-the-organizational-cu-1/)).

Part of the problem, I suspect, is the idealistic nature of a chunk of your (US) assumptions, especially those related to the idea of an invisible hand operating in the information/political economy. Personally, I think it is naive to assume that the media will not be co-opted by political and economic factions with specific agendas. Their entire livelihood is based on their ability to compete in the (supposedly) "free market" of information reporting. But where does the money come from?

This is why I believe that the blogsphere, and sites like SWC, are so important. The structural impetus is not crudely economic in the "I do X, you pay me Y" sense of the term. It is a much better example of a "free market" of information than anything that shows up in the MSM.

*****
just got a link to this which I think makes part of my argument for me...

L.A. Times to Cut 250 jobs, 150 in newsroom (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25503624/).

Great points as usual, Marc. I would add a fourth consideration in media affairs. As a military guy for most of my life--but one assigned to work with non-military agencies--I have long watched our military culture and how it affects our views and how we describe those views, both orally and in writing. We as a military see what we report as correct and anything that differs from what we see as correct is by definition incorrect and possibly delberately so. "We don't like CNN so we change channels to Fox because we like them more,' is symptomatic of this tendency.

Inside the military, I had a similar experience as an intelligence analyst and operator dealing with manuever commanders. Intelligence is always a business of pessimism; manuever looks for and expects the positive. The friction between the two is apparent to anyone who has ever sat through an ops intell update. When the shoving is over, the positive wins.

Ergo most of what is going to come out as the facts in a military account of any event is going to tend toward the positive. That tendency also runs full tilt into the media's tendency to look for the bad news.

We are not going to "fix" this. We can only expect it and mitigate its effects when necessary. See: CALL Newsletter 07-04 (http://call.army.mil/docs/07-04/07-04.pdf)Media is the Battlefield

Best

Tom

marct

07-07-2008, 04:07 PM

Great points as usual, Marc.

Thanks, Tom. I seem to be on a structuralist jag recently... :wry:

I would add a fourth consideration in media affairs. As a military guy for most of my life--but one assigned to work with non-military agencies--I have long watched our military culture and how it affects our views and how we describe those views, both orally and in writing. We as a military see what we report as correct and anything that differs from what we see as correct is by definition incorrect and possibly delberately so. "We don't like CNN so we change channels to Fox because we like them more,' is symptomatic of this tendency.

Really good point, Tom. I've always suspected that one of the key friction points has been conflicts in the oral language, without people understanding why the differences exist and why they are necessary. I remember years ago talking with a bunch of anti-(Vietnam)war people in Toronto, and one of the comments made really stuck with me: (roughly) "the military uses 'sanitized' language to avoid responsibility for their actions." Hunh, what a crock! About a week before that little encounter, I had been having lunch with my great uncle, who was a WW I vet, and a bunch of his friends and they had slipped out of "sanitized" language for a minute or two, appeared to get very depressed and then started using it again.

But that friction with language comes out, especially when reporters quote people. Terms like "collateral damage", "friendly fire", etc. have a tendency to be taken by many of the civilian population as newspeak in the Orwellian sense. It's certainly not unique to military-civilian interactions, either ;). The way many people react to what politicians and corporations say is another great example of the phenomenon; phrases like "unavoidable readjustment in the economy", "rightsizing", "free trade", etc. are good examples.

Marc

Ken White

07-07-2008, 04:16 PM

I could quibble around the edges but only microscopically and that only due to personal experience and bias.

Reality is always such a drag... :wry:

Featherock

07-07-2008, 06:27 PM

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers. The discussion it generated is more interesting.

That said, are there any actual journalists commenting here?

Ken White

07-07-2008, 07:09 PM

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers.I would've said poor satire as opposed to propaganda but whatever. :D
That said, are there any actual journalists commenting here?Oblong said he was, >20 years worth...

Now you're here so that's two (plus lurkers like hedgpethd), I guess...

Featherock

07-07-2008, 07:16 PM

I thought that the satire itself was quite good! It's the propagandistic bent to it that brings it down. But enough of that...

I don't think we in the U.S. get enough mainstream media stories that are critical of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thank God for the web

Ken White

07-07-2008, 07:59 PM

I don't think we in the U.S. get enough mainstream media stories that are critical of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.Definition 1, below, I think we get more than enough *. If you mean Definition 2, then I agree with you:

1. Inclined to judge severely and find fault.

2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment:

* With the caveat that I understand that if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead and that the second definition is precluded by several factors including local stringers with obvious and totally understandable impartiality problems and a general lack of knowledge, acceptance or understanding of all many western reporters see -- and also that there's a strong proclivity to insure prophecy becomes reality on the part of stateside based editors and producers. :D

Featherock

07-07-2008, 08:13 PM

Definitely #2.

I think the result of #2 has been jingoism, mainly.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.

Wildcat

07-07-2008, 08:41 PM

I laughed. I wouldn't call it conservative propaganda, but it highlights a very well earned distrust with the media. Not to get on my soapbox or anything, but I've seen virtually no news coverage of the current offensive in Mosul, the last redoubt of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

The moment I still come back to, though, time and time again in my mind, was when Cpl. Jason Dunham's family was given his Medal of Honor, awarded posthumously.

But it received virtually no airtime on any of the major cable news outlets.

Why?

Because that was the same day as Anna Nicole Smith's funeral.

Non-stop coverage of some bimbo's funeral on CNN, while Dunham's sacrifice went almost unnoticed. That made my blood boil.

Take from that what you will. I don't buy into all the "liberal media" invective that gets tossed around. I read the New York Times almost every day, and I don't believe there's any conspiracy to undermine the war. But I am constantly reminded that media is a business, and it tends to seek that which will bring more viewers, and thus generate more revenue. There may be a few diamonds in the rough, reporters and correspondents who still have integrity and commitment, but by and large it seems to me that the media is not to be trusted.

marct

07-07-2008, 08:43 PM

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.

True, but that's back at the infotainment industry ;). Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now.

selil

07-07-2008, 08:51 PM

True, but that's back at the infotainment industry ;). Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now.

We could write critical examinations but it would get darn lonely quick.

marct

07-07-2008, 08:56 PM

We could write critical examinations but it would get darn lonely quick.

LOLOL - too true!

BTW, I was using the term "critical" in its real, not PC, sense - an evaluation of available evidence and judgement. The PC sense of "It's BAAAAAAADDDDD!!!!!!!!" doesn't cut it IMHO ;).

Ken White

07-07-2008, 09:27 PM

...I think the result of #2 has been jingoism, mainly.I'm unsure what you mean by that. I do know that I have seen so little truly thoughtful analysis and comment on either Afghanistan or Iraq that I'm unsure how jingoism can develop other than as a dumb knee jerk reaction to sloppy reporting.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.The interesting thing is that there's plenty of #1 about due to ignorance of entirely too many of the writers and a bias that is not necessarily as a committed believer in much of anything, to include the three thoughts you posit.

Indeed, many don't seem to be believers in much of anything except in some cases by some journalists that it is their role to save the world from itself -- like the Preachers who believe the same thing, they really get short shrift from most of the great unwashed. I truly don't think most of the world savers in either vocation realize just how short...

Marketing in the US generally heads for the late teen-early 20 market because that's where the flaky binge spenders are. Due to market pressures as Oblong mentioned print journalism is aiming at the same market. Like him, I'm inclined to disagree with that approach. It would seem to me that anyone who wanted to improve the world would object strenuously to dumbing down anything, much less the news. There are exceptions that do not dumb down their output -- but there are not nearly enough of them.

Marc said:
"...Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now."Between why it started or why it was said it started? Two very, very different things, I think...

Rank amateur

07-07-2008, 09:37 PM

I do know that I have seen so little truly thoughtful analysis and comment on either Afghanistan or Iraq that I'm unsure how jingoism can develop other than as a dumb knee jerk reaction to sloppy reporting.

The fact that the war was sold on sound bites like weapons of mass destruction, liberation, flowers at our feet, dead enders and mission accomplished may have something to do with it too.;)

marct

07-07-2008, 09:43 PM

Between why it started or why it was said it started? Two very, very different things, I think...

Good point, Ken - I was more referring to the entire entire "start debate" vs. the "now that we're here..." or what do we do now" debates. For example, a story that says "this is an illegal war so we should now withdraw" would be mixing the two. It's one of the reasons why I was so peeved over the Dems "Support the soldiers, not the war" meme...

Rank amateur

07-07-2008, 10:27 PM

It's one of the reasons why I was so peeved over the Dems "Support the soldiers, not the war" meme...

"If you support our troops, you must support the war" hasn't worked out too well for the other guys. What do you suggest instead?

Culpeper

07-08-2008, 12:40 AM

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers. The discussion it generated is more interesting.

Conservative propaganda is a little harsh. Conservative satire is more like it. Its intellectual value has some merit no different than political cartoons of every flavor. Excluding myself, most of the folks posting on this thread are taking a serious look at the media that the satire sparked. So, I disagree that the post, which started this thread is not worth reading by SWC readers. Without the original post there would be no discussion here. If you found the original post insulting in some way than please elaborate further. To include something written in American society as propaganda is not taking a fair look at freedom of expression. The word, "propaganda" used to describe someone's freedom of expression is a hot button that should be used with caution. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of every journalist's philosophy on Freedom for the Press. In fact, I would go far as to state that describing the satire as "conservative", "liberal", "right", or "left", is a moot point.

Watcher In The Middle

07-08-2008, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by marct:

Part of the problem, I suspect, is the idealistic nature of a chunk of your (US) assumptions, especially those related to the idea of an invisible hand operating in the information/political economy. Personally, I think it is naive to assume that the media will not be co-opted by political and economic factions with specific agendas. Their entire livelihood is based on their ability to compete in the (supposedly) "free market" of information reporting. But where does the money come from?

Actually, the "But where does the money come from?" is interesting. It's not "new money" at issue here, because there really isn't any, but it is all about stagnating/declining revenues, and even tougher, new outlets competing for existing revenues.

The news media has over the long-term, cast themselves as the "Information Middleman", but they got both greedy and stupid about doing it, and they overdid it. If you want to be a successful middleman, honesty and integrity are EVERYTHING. And when you are in the middle and you find that you are "shaping" the news (even if only by appearance, and even if only to part of the audience), you have just started on that slippery slope down to the bottom.

And then you have the Internet.

The theme of disintermediation -- of eliminating middlemen -- has been a driving force in the Internet for as long as commerce has been allowed on the web. But what happens when the middleman you just eliminated had as one of his or her jobs the task of keeping us from being ripped off?Link to Column (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080704_005191.html)

Now, that's an argument that could be made by the newspapers (and television), except for the fact that it's become apparent that they were the very ones ripping "We The People" off over all this time - for example, see the effects of craigslist.org on newspapers classified advertising, and other types of advertising. So making the watchdog argument is falling on mostly deaf ears.

There's a reality here that the print media (and I'm not just talking newspapers, and certainly not just the WaPo and/or NYTimes) is having to deal with, which is their news media "Leadership" (such as it is) has been, and still is trying desperately to make information / POV outlets like the Internet and the blogs subservient to their existing empires. Basically, they are trying the same approach circa 1997-2004 that Microsoft tried to do with the Internet, which was run the Internet through the desktop, which MS just happened to control. Didn't work for them, no reason it's going to change this second time around.

It's almost like their media empires work on the basis that because they have all this tradition, and a business plan that worked reasonably well pre-Internet, and all this sunk capital already deployed in their empires, that's enough of a reason that they should be pre-eminent going forward into the Internet/digital future.

But that's unlikely to be, IMO. Just pay close attention to the troubles and travails of The Tribune Company over the last year or so. And just wait for the whole STNG (Chicago Sun-Times News Group) to fail, because there's a slow-motion train wreck in process. There will be others.

Finally, just as an observation, it seems to an outsider that the mainstream media seems to spend an inordinate amount of time picking at the US military, but the end result is that the military is much better for it (certainly in terms of the measure of public respect), while the news media seems to keep sinking even further into the depths of public disrespect. You think they'd figure it out after a while that they got the formula backwards.:rolleyes:

Ken White

07-08-2008, 12:49 AM

A resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -- who unlike his namesake Uncle A. E. Newman, does worry.

Alfred has been known to say:

"Football is not a game, it is a physical contest between persons of low intellect who, if they do possess Degrees, received them only because they played football for four years for some podunk college."

"Football players are vastly overpayed; it's a travesty."

"No son of mine will ever play football if I have anything to do with it."

"I would never pay a penny to watch a football game."

"They built that big expensive Stadium and just think how useful that money could have been in improving downtown schools and alleviating poverty."

Alfred also says "But I support the Steelers..."

I agree with Alfred on most of those issues. The difference between us is that I make absolutely no pretense of supporting the Steelers or any other Football team.

Ken White

07-08-2008, 12:57 AM

...The news media has over the long-term, cast themselves as the "Information Middleman", but they got both greedy and stupid about doing it, and they overdid it. If you want to be a successful middleman, honesty and integrity are EVERYTHING. And when you are in the middle and you find that you are "shaping" the news (even if only by appearance, and even if only to part of the audience), you have just started on that slippery slope down to the bottom.True, I think. I cannot figure out how a bunch of nominally intelligent people cannot see what they have done to themselves in that vein.
...Basically, they are trying the same approach circa 1997-2004 that Microsoft tried to do with the Internet, which was run the Internet through the desktop, which MS just happened to control. Didn't work for them, no reason it's going to change this second time around.Also true; I'm reminded of a quote from someone, can't recall who, on the demise of US Railroads; "They didn't realize they were in the transportation business, they thought they were in the railroad business." Interestingly, the major Airlines have more recently made the same mistake. Looks like the media is bound down the same path.
Finally, just as an observation, it seems to an outsider that the mainstream media seems to spend an inordinate amount of time picking at the US military, but the end result is that the military is much better for it (certainly in terms of the measure of public respect), while the news media seems to keep sinking even further into the depths of public disrespect. You think they'd figure it out after a while that they got the formula backwards.:rolleyes:Well, they told us if George Bush got elected, the nation would suffer from hubris... :D

Culpeper

07-08-2008, 01:05 AM

True, I think. Well, they told us if George Bush got elected, the nation would suffer from hubris... :D

When I said the result of the media's lack of critical analysis leading up to the war in Iraq resulted in mainly jingoistic stories, I meant that, largely, the stories the media did publish supported the war in one way or another, either through benign neglect of the facts (there were no WMD), through breathless reports from "embeds" on the rush of combat (embeds: I give the DoD an A+ in marketing for that policy); or through outright advocacy in the guise of journalism. It all added up to one big beat of the war drum.

Also, I still think the satire that started the thread was propaganda. It didn't simply send up bad reporting. The Daily Show does that nearly every night through satire, and they skewer any and all media, not just Fox, with no agenda other than anti-ignorance. The joke was propaganda because it was pushing a very familiar neocon criticism of the sort that gets caught in my spam filter on a daily basis: the media is biased, left leaning, and possibly Francophone. Freedom fries anyone?

Ken White

07-08-2008, 02:47 AM

When I said the result of the media's lack of critical analysis leading up to the war in Iraq resulted in mainly jingoistic stories, I meant that, largely, the stories the media did publish supported the war in one way or another, either through benign neglect of the facts (there were no WMD)...They reported what the Guvmint said -- which as anyone who was paying any attention at all should have known then and as most hopefully know now -- was designed to get them on side, it had little to do with the real reasons for going to Iraq. It was, simply, mostly a lot of patently unbelievable BS. That the media types fell for it is a lick on them. That they did is true partly due to their ignorance (i.e. lack of relevant knowledge) but they had little else to go on because they had all gutted their overseas reporting capability during the 90s. I think that's at least partly what the British call an 'own goal.' Maybe a couple.
through breathless reports from "embeds" on the rush of combat (embeds: I give the DoD an A+ in marketing for that policy)...Aside from marketing give DoD and the guys and gals who went an attaboy for allowing that much coverage (not in a lack of censorship but in the sense of offering the media a ride, some food and some protection from the vagaries of combat) and for basically doing a good and fair job on the part of the reporters. They mostly got far better stories that way than they would have had with other methods. Did some units do better by the reporters than others, sure, just as some reporters did better than others -- people and units are not all equal.
...or through outright advocacy in the guise of journalism. It all added up to one big beat of the war drum.Amazing. An operator (the Admin) tries to sell its program to a possibly skeptical audience with some spin through the mass media. What a novel idea...

As for the war drum; the Rule of Thirds and the Two Year Rule always apply. That's as American as Peach Cobbler.
Also, I still think the satire that started the thread was propaganda. It didn't simply send up bad reporting. The Daily Show does that nearly every night through satire, and they skewer any and all media, not just Fox, with no agenda other than anti-ignorance.Your prerogative. Dunno about the Daily Show, don't waste my time with TV.
The joke was propaganda because it was pushing a very familiar neocon criticism of the sort that gets caught in my spam filter on a daily basis: the media is biased, left leaning, and possibly Francophone. Freedom fries anyone?I could make a smart comment about that paragraph of yours I just quoted being propaganda in its own right but I'll forego that to point out that many who work in the media are mildly left leaning compared to, say, me. That's cool, nothing wrong with it, a lot of my friends and relatives are left leaning, some a lot further than most of the media but I still listen to them. So for me to say the media is 'left leaning' is perhaps true whereas for you and many others, that would not be the case. In any event, I do not see that tilt as a problem -- nor would I suggest it leads to dishonesty.

As for bias, some yes, some no -- we ALL have our biases. All anyone has to do is filter for it.

Some of the media is in fact Francophone -- I think that mostly relates to location and local language attributes. Quebec has some Francophone broadsheets, for example. Most US media is Anglophone. Good thing, my French is limited to about six words.

I'm unsure what Freedom Fries are, don't think I've ever had any...

Ken White

07-08-2008, 03:03 AM

The fact that the war was sold on sound bites like weapons of mass destruction, liberation, flowers at our feet, dead enders and mission accomplished may have something to do with it too.;)Only to those who weren't paying attention and did not realize that:

- There was no WMD problem; absolutely no way Iraq was a threat in that arena.

- Liberation? Perhaps -- but war is never that simple, even my sixteen year old granddaughter knew that.

- Flowers at our feet -- never going to happen in any meaningful sense; if it did happen it would be fleeting and irrelevant.

- Dead enders are ALWAYS a problem (they were when we got there and they still are). Heck, they're a problem in this country today.

- Mission accomplished -- paying attention to what politicians of any stripe say is not terribly bright.

So, yeah, since the media struck out on all those, they got their feelings hurt and retaliated by being unhelpful. Not a problem. Nor does it address what I said which was: ""I do know that I have seen so little truly thoughtful analysis and comment on either Afghanistan or Iraq that I'm unsure how jingoism can develop other than as a dumb knee jerk reaction to sloppy reporting."" Point being that negative reporting or failing to accentuate the positive is not at all the same thing I said; those things are due, IMO, to a net lack of competence, not to bias or a sense of being taken.

Culpeper

07-08-2008, 03:05 AM

When I said the result of the media's lack of critical analysis leading up to the war in Iraq resulted in mainly jingoistic stories, I meant that, largely, the stories the media did publish supported the war in one way or another, either through benign neglect of the facts (there were no WMD), through breathless reports from "embeds" on the rush of combat (embeds: I give the DoD an A+ in marketing for that policy); or through outright advocacy in the guise of journalism. It all added up to one big beat of the war drum.

Also, I still think the satire that started the thread was propaganda. It didn't simply send up bad reporting. The Daily Show does that nearly every night through satire, and they skewer any and all media, not just Fox, with no agenda other than anti-ignorance. The joke was propaganda because it was pushing a very familiar neocon criticism of the sort that gets caught in my spam filter on a daily basis: the media is biased, left leaning, and possibly Francophone. Freedom fries anyone?

You're using a rather wide brush to paint your obvious bias that is moot as far as the topic is concerned. So, your spam filter is objective and freedom of expression and for that matter freedom of the press are conditionally subjective in your opinion? I'm not translating something correctly. Maybe you just have a [philosophical] nihilistic approach from a certain angle on the topic of journalism and war in our times because the way I'm reading your writing you seem to be offended by the written word that just happens to not fit your mold of something. Who ever wrote that slant on today's press had every right to write it. It is in the Constitution. I don't understand why that is propaganda. If it was propaganda it would be an effort to stymie the war effort. Unless, you erroneously believe it is an effort to bolster the war effort. It certainly isn't going to change anyone's mind on the topic. Anyway, its freedom of expression. Not propaganda. Again, does your spam filter include words like "Al Franken", or "Nancy Peloesi"? Because otherwise I would swear you have an agenda. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I used to have an agenda. But I've become about eight years older since that started and have since grown out of it. Due in large part by patient and wiser minds telling me enough times that perhaps I was full of it. And I was. Ten years ago I would have thought what was posted at the beginning of this thread was propaganda. About eight to two years ago I would have stated, "Right on!" Today, I just look at that piece as freedom of expression. Something we fight for and just move on.

Schmedlap

07-08-2008, 03:28 AM

Also, I still think the satire that started the thread was propaganda. It didn't simply send up bad reporting. ... The joke was propaganda because it was pushing a very familiar neocon criticism of the sort that gets caught in my spam filter on a daily basis: the media is biased, left leaning, and possibly Francophone.

The satire was highlighting the perceived tendency for the media to selectively report only those tidbits of information that cast our operations in a negative light and to deliberately spin facts in such a way as to create controversy. That speaks more to irresponsibility than to a bias or leaning (not sure what the French thing is about). It was intended to entertain people who hold that perception. For those who do not hold that perception, it will put them on the defensive. Propaganda is meant to propagate support for an idea, not to solidify disagreement or simply entertain people who already wholeheartedly buy into the idea.

My observation is that when someone hears a joke and calls it propaganda, then that person lacks a sense of humor. As someone who prides himself on having a sense of humor, I will assume that you played the "neocon" card in an attempt to entertain and amuse, rather than to push propaganda of your own.

marct

07-08-2008, 03:55 AM

Also, I still think the satire that started the thread was propaganda. It didn't simply send up bad reporting. The Daily Show does that nearly every night through satire, and they skewer any and all media, not just Fox, with no agenda other than anti-ignorance.

Personally, I love the Daily Show - it's a toss up between CTV evening news and the DS when 11pm rolls around. Although, I have to disagree with you on whether or not they have any other agendas...

The joke was propaganda because it was pushing a very familiar neocon criticism of the sort that gets caught in my spam filter on a daily basis: the media is biased, left leaning, and possibly Francophone. Freedom fries anyone?

Who ever wrote that slant on today's press had every right to write it. It is in the Constitution. I don't understand why that is propaganda. If it was propaganda it would be an effort to stymie the war effort. Unless, you erroneously believe it is an effort to bolster the war effort. It certainly isn't going to change anyone's mind on the topic. Anyway, its freedom of expression. Not propaganda.

Propaganda is meant to propagate support for an idea, not to solidify disagreement or simply entertain people who already wholeheartedly buy into the idea.

I'm really wondering if we are using the word "propaganda" in the same, or even similar, manner! Personally, my definition is closer to Schmedlaps's, although I would have said "propagate a perception" rather than an "idea". This may be worth pulling out...

Can we come up with an objective definition of propaganda as distinguished from, say, bias?

My observation is that when someone hears a joke and calls it propaganda, then that person lacks a sense of humor. As someone who prides himself on having a sense of humor, I will assume that you played the "neocon" card in an attempt to entertain and amuse, rather than to push propaganda of your own.

Well, I suspect that I could probably come up with a joke that anyone on the board would find offensive and/or propaganda. Jokes deal with structural disjunctures (amongst other things) and, after a while, they stop being funny to certain groups. Jokes are also used to create perceptions in a population so, in that sense, they can definitely be propaganda... at least using my definition :D.

Marc

Culpeper

07-08-2008, 03:59 AM

The satire was highlighting the perceived tendency for the media to selectively report only those tidbits of information that cast our operations in a negative light and to deliberately spin facts in such a way as to create controversy.

That is another quote of the day!:)

Well said! I wish I posted that. Well, we've hit rock bottom by having to explain the obvious and ruin the whole thing. Now, it really is Spring Time for Hitler and Germany.

Schmed:

Are you sure you're not related to Joseph Heller?

Steve Blair

07-08-2008, 01:14 PM

Also, I still think the satire that started the thread was propaganda. It didn't simply send up bad reporting. The Daily Show does that nearly every night through satire, and they skewer any and all media, not just Fox, with no agenda other than anti-ignorance. The joke was propaganda because it was pushing a very familiar neocon criticism of the sort that gets caught in my spam filter on a daily basis: the media is biased, left leaning, and possibly Francophone. Freedom fries anyone?

Um...actually there was a study done that determined that the majority of mainstream media does tilt to the left. Link to a story on the study is here (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx) and a quote from the story follows:

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

The study was quickly attacked by some who may not want any findings of bias to leak out...or simply can't stand the idea that bias might exist in their own ranks. For an example, see here (http://coloradolib.com/2005/12/ucla-media-study-deeply-flawed.html).

What I find funny about this is that everyone has a bias to some degree or another. Your personal experiences, leanings, interests, and the like are going to determine how you view many events. A wise person acknowledges said bias and tries to understand how it impacts his or her view of events. Others deny their bias, or claim that based on their political or social beliefs it is impossible for them to be biased, while anyone who disagrees with them is clearly biased. And given the time constraints that most media members operate under, it's not very likely that they'd have the time to go back through and remove every trace of their own biases from a story.

American media has also been an interesting case in itself: at times a group of crusaders mixed with businessmen and used by political machines to accomplish their goals with a minimum of attention. Up until perhaps the early 1900s they were certainly not often known for their objective reporting or apolitical stances on anything (with the usual few exceptions). Interesting how some things change (or at least seem to change).

marct

07-08-2008, 11:09 PM

Given our discussion about then media, I thought this would be a good place to post this story from CBC.ca

Christopher Hitchens, a Washington-based journalist known for his support of the Iraq war and the U.S. war on terror, has subjected himself to waterboarding.

The experiment was done in answer to critics who challenged him to try it after he defended U.S. treatment of Muslim prisoners.

The controversial interrogation technique, which simulates drowning, is the focus of an intense debate in U.S. political circles.

Washington has been divided over whether or not waterboarding can be called torture since it was learned the technique was used by the CIA on at least three detainees, one of them being Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who is accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks.

The experience left Hitchens with no doubts. The August issue of Vanity Fair will carry his article titled "Believe Me, It's Torture."

The public preparation for the Iraq invasion still confuses me. It seemed to me as if rationalism was completely shut off at that time.
I argued with some about the topic, and the discussions clearly showed that there was no rational thinking left among my discussion partners. We burned through one pro argument (crushing it) after another, and when all were done, they simply began anew.

The chemical weapons argument, for example (IIRC people thought more about chemical agents than about nukes at that time).

What's the silliest action if you want to prevent chemical weapons use by a dictator who hasn't used those agents in twelve years?
- It's of course an invasion that threatens his rule and leaves him no way out.
What's the silliest action if you want to protect your people against it?
- Do the invasion yourself.

There was absolutely no rational thinking involved. I asked sometime in 2004/2005 people whether this question was ever mentioned in public discussion; whether an invasion is really a logical answer to the supposed problem.
They said "No."
Unbelievable.

And well, it's quite the same today. Nobody really asks himself or others whether fighting in Afghanistan is really a useful method to combat AQ.
Nobody seems to question the following assumptions:
- Taleban will have a comeback without our forces there (although they're just one of many civil war parties and we're fighting instead and not in addition to the other parties)
- They will invite AQ back and provide a safe harbour
- AQ is still an organization that depends on bases (and not just on access to internet)
- Having one more safe harbour (in addition to Pakistan's mountains) increases the threat that AQ poses
- fighting in Afghanistan hurts us less than just accepting occasional acts of terror (despite hundreds of KIA and billions USD spent annually)

I believe that the failure to actually discuss our ways is still rampant.
It's just not recognizable as an outrageous failure as was the Iraq invasion thing.

selil

07-09-2008, 01:02 AM

You know if the POTUS has said that we should consider the "Iraq" invasion as a magnet to terrorists and a sacrificial lamb for force projection. I might be a lot happier today. If they had said the GWOT needs a front for an asymmetric non-state enemy and we can make one where none exists it would have been a lot more honest.

Ken White

07-09-2008, 01:28 AM

Watch what they do.

The public preparation for the Iraq invasion still confuses me. It seemed to me as if rationalism was completely shut off at that time.True on the public pronouncements, not necessarily so on the actual reasons.
The chemical weapons argument, for example (IIRC people thought more about chemical agents than about nukes at that time).

What's the silliest action if you want to prevent chemical weapons use by a dictator who hasn't used those agents in twelve years?
- It's of course an invasion that threatens his rule and leaves him no way out.
What's the silliest action if you want to protect your people against it?
- Do the invasion yourself.

There was absolutely no rational thinking involved. I asked sometime in 2004/2005 people whether this question was ever mentioned in public discussion; whether an invasion is really a logical answer to the supposed problem.
They said "No."
Unbelievable. True -- if you listened to and believed even part of the babble and political hype over the issue (most who were paying attention ignored all that foolishness). The actual reason was to tell the ME (Not Afghanistan * -- that's not in the ME) that we would no longer do nothing as four previous US Presidents from both parties and over 27 years had to a series of attacks against US interests (Not the US proper -- that was Afghanistan *) over that time; that and to get some bases there. There were a host of minor synergies and most of them have dribbled out over time but had Bush said all that upfront, he's not have gotten his resolution from Congress.
And well, it's quite the same today. Nobody really asks himself or others whether fighting in Afghanistan is really a useful method to combat AQ.All valid questions IF one assumes the issue in Afghanistan is to combat AQ. Don't think that's a valid assumption.
I believe that the failure to actually discuss our ways is still rampant.That's hard to do coherently today due to our rapid worldwide communication ability; it's too easy to telegraph what one intends and thus to alert ones opponents.

It's just not recognizable as an outrageous failure as was the Iraq invasion thing.Why is it a failure? The ME doesn't question that Americans are nuts and will visit your country and break things if you make us mad; we have -- and will continue to have -- bases in the area. Actually, we could almost give up the bases today with little loss and we're still ahead. The whole world is a bit ahead even if most don't realize it yet. :D

* To most westerners, the differentiation between attacks on the US emanating from Afghanistan and attacks on US interests worldwide emanating from the ME is nil, they're both the same thing. That is not true at all in the eyes of those from the ME. Afghanistan was the eye for the US eye; had nothing in the minds of the ME to do with the ME, Afghans areb abarians and ignored by ME people.

Iraq, OTOH, had the misfortune to have an unloved dictator, be a military wreck and thus an easy target (even if the Army messed up for the first 18 months, it's still been relatively easy) and to be geographically central in the ME and thus it got to be the arm for the arm of the US worldwide interests. May confuse westerners but the Asians understood -- and, most importantly, those in the ME understood. Which is why we went...

Ken White

07-09-2008, 01:46 AM

You know if the POTUS has said that we should consider the "Iraq" invasion as a magnet to terrorists and a sacrificial lamb for force projection. I might be a lot happier today. If they had said the GWOT needs a front for an asymmetric non-state enemy and we can make one where none exists it would have been a lot more honest.more problems than Blair did have and Bush probably would not have gotten the resolution through our Congress -- even though he earlier bought Democratic support with the Agriculture Bill and Steel Tariffs he did not like.

Not to excuse the absolutely pathetic job the Admin did of 'selling' the war but their hands were sort of tied -- telling the harsh truth wouldn't have gotten the support to launch. Saying that "We've got to stand up to these minor league bullies or they'll nickel and dime us to death" wouldn't have resonated then any more than the WMD ploy does in retrospect. I think he understood that a line had to be drawn and was afraid his successor in '04 or '08 would not do what he thought needed to be done. He went early in case he missed reelection in '04 and that created problems of its own.

As I've often said, I wouldn't have done it that way -- but I do quite strongly agree that something along that line needed to be done. I'm not a Bush fan but I'll give him credit for doing something that needed to be done; something that his four predecessors had sluffed.

Culpeper

07-09-2008, 03:40 AM

Given our discussion about then media, I thought this would be a good place to post this story from CBC.ca

I saw an outtake of the "The Jackasses" where they were water boarding each other. They seemed to be having a good time. It must be the preparation that makes water boarding seem like torture. "The Jackasses" were obviously partying and in dark ops there are probably no festivities. Just the instruments, operatives, and prisoners. Also, unless applied by a professional I wouldn't test water boarding to make a story about water boarding as torture. You might shoot your eye out.

EDIT: I was being waggishly facetious.:)

Schmedlap

07-09-2008, 03:26 PM

Given our discussion about then media, I thought this would be a good place to post this story from CBC.ca

Christopher Hitchens, a Washington-based journalist known for his support of the Iraq war and the U.S. war on terror, has subjected himself to waterboarding.

Sounds like a nice stunt for Hitchens to earn a little more cash.

I want to make sure I'm clear on this. Our intel folks waterboarded 3 of the highest level terrorist operatives in our possession, about 6 or 7 years ago, in response to an unprecedented terrorist attack on our mainland and the realistic fear that another would occur. Do I have that about right? If so, why the concern about waterboarding? You'd think that it's something that we plan on doing again. It seems like we experienced the perfect storm there: high level operatives, unprecedented terrorist attack on mainland with thousands dead, country in panic, fear of a ticking-time-bomb scenario, and intel and nat'l security communities in general disarray. I don't think that happens more than about once every decade or generation or so. Given the hysteria, you'd think it occurs 3 times per day and that Dick Cheney personally turns on the water.

wm

07-09-2008, 03:31 PM

Given the hysteria, you'd think it occurs 3 times per day and that Dick Cheney personally turns on the water.
What the Veep chooses to do in the privacy of his own home is not a subject of concern for us here.
:D

marct

07-09-2008, 04:54 PM

Hi Schmedlap,

I want to make sure I'm clear on this. Our intel folks waterboarded 3 of the highest level terrorist operatives in our possession, about 6 or 7 years ago, in response to an unprecedented terrorist attack on our mainland and the realistic fear that another would occur. Do I have that about right? If so, why the concern about waterboarding? You'd think that it's something that we plan on doing again.

I'm honestly unsure of the total numbers and if anyone has them, it would be great to see.

I think the concern has centered around waterboarding because that has become the symbol for "torture" and sidestepping the anti-torture conventions. As a symbol, any absolute reality of its use, scope and range is immaterial; it has become the focal point of a semantic web of meaning, hence the "concern".

As a "debate", it results out of a perceptual breach. Hmmm, try this.

"torture" is "evil"
"evil" is the opposite of "good"
"We" are "good"
Therefore we don't commit "torture"

However,

waterboarding has been used by "us"
but, since we are "good" and torture is "evil", that means that
waterboarding cannot be "torture"

That's the old "official" logic that Hitchens used to support, at least passively. What he has done by putting waterboarding to the test is to realign the epistemological grounds somewhat for several of the points like this:

waterboarding has been used by "us"
but, since we [collectively] are "good" and torture is "evil", and
waterboarding is torture, that means that
someone amongst the collective "us" is forcing us to commit evil.

It's definitely a semantic realignment :wry:.

What I found fascinating about it was the epistemological premise underlying it all. First of all, he assumes, as many of us do, that we will be able to tell if X, Y or Z is "torture" if we experience it - sort of like the "I don't know art but I know what I like [and if I like it, it's "Art"]" model (i.e. Truth by personal experience). Now this is a completely different epistemological ground from the more common ideological one - e.g. "If X says it, it must be right" (truth by assertion).

When we look at the valorization of the Press as a "watchdog", that Truth via experience model implicitly underlies our expectations.

wm

07-09-2008, 05:48 PM

What I found fascinating about it was the epistemological premise underlying it all. First of all, he assumes, as many of us do, that we will be able to tell if X, Y or Z is "torture" if we experience it - sort of like the "I don't know art but I know what I like [and if I like it, it's "Art"]" model (i.e. Truth by personal experience). Now this is a completely different epistemological ground from the more common ideological one - e.g. "If X says it, it must be right" (truth by assertion).

When we look at the valorization of the Press as a "watchdog", that Truth via experience model implicitly underlies our expectations.

MarcT,

I won't comment on all of the problems in the logical presentations of the stylized arguments in your post (the stuff I deleted from the above quotation). I'm more concerned with the last point anyway. I think the "Press as Watchdog" model of truth is an epistemological stance that accords validity based on position rather than on experience. It is subject to the informal fallacy of "appeal to (illegitimate) authority" (and I'm not talking about the marital status of the authority's parents :D). Too often folks get snookered by "authorities" who either aren't experts or are operating well outside the scope of their expertise (Noam Chomsky being one of my favorite examples, but most of the CNN and Fox News military analysts have been known to overstep their "scope of practice" as well).

What Hitchens may really have been up to was a corrective belief experience, a form of a posteriori testing of his beliefs about waterboarding. That does not "prove" that waterboarding is torture. A mismatch exists between being able to test whether a physical manifestation of a characteristic of a concept actually instantiates that characteristic (a rather subjective and at best, interpersonal activity) and being able to determining whether the a priori list of characteristics one has for "defining " a concept adequately defines that concept (again subjective and probably interpersonal due to the use of the normative term 'adequately'). What Hitchens did was decide that waterboarding was an instance of the concept 'torture' but he did not explain what about waterboarding had the conditions necessary to hang the name 'torture' on the action. (To use terms of art, he showed that an act of waterboarding was in his extension for torture, not that it was in anyone's intension for the term.) To summarize, he found that waterboarding scared the crap out of him, but he didn't demostrate that having the crap scared out of you is a form of torture. (BTW, if being scared to death were a form of torture, then Bram Stoker tortured me with his book Dracula.)

marct

07-09-2008, 06:12 PM

Hi WM,

I won't comment on all of the problems in the logical presentations of the stylized arguments in your post (the stuff I deleted from the above quotation).

One of these days, we have to sit down and do a comparison between formal logic and semantic or emotional logic - preferably combined with a series of optics experiments :D.

I'm more concerned with the last point anyway. I think the "Press as Watchdog" model of truth is an epistemological stance that accords validity based on position rather than on experience. It is subject to the informal fallacy of "appeal to (illegitimate) authority" (and I'm not talking about the marital status of the authority's parents :D).

It's a matter of stance, really. The assumption o the part of the audience is that the reporter is an "authority", as you noted (or, at least, that they have done their homework). But this hides another assumption which is that the reporter has an experiential grounding in the area of, at a minimum, the "ask the man who knows" type.

Actually, this type of stance based authority is standard in any type of culture more complex than a simple Hunter-Gatherer group (cf Durkheim's Introduction to he 2nd edition of The Division of Labor in Society (http://www.amazon.com/Division-Labor-Society-Emile-Durkheim/dp/0684836386)).

Too often folks get snookered by "authorities" who either aren't experts or are operating well outside the scope of their expertise (Noam Chomsky being one of my favorite examples, but most of the CNN and Fox News military analysts have been known to overstep their "scope of practice" as well).

Agreed; happens all the time.

What Hitchens may really have been up to was a corrective belief experience, a form of a posteriori testing of his beliefs about waterboarding. That does not "prove" that waterboarding is torture. A mismatch exists between being able to test whether a physical manifestation of a characteristic of a concept actually instantiates that characteristic (a rather subjective and at best, interpersonal activity) and being able to determining whether the a priori list of characteristics one has for "defining " a concept adequately defines that concept (again subjective and probably interpersonal due to the use of the normative term 'adequately'). What Hitchens did was decide that waterboarding was an instance of the concept 'torture' but he did not explain what about waterboarding had the conditions necessary to hang the name 'torture' on the action. (To use terms of art, he showed that an act of waterboarding was in his extension for torture, not that it was in anyone's intension for the term.) To summarize, he found that waterboarding scared the crap out of him, but he didn't demostrate that having the crap scared out of you is a form of torture. (BTW, if being scared to death were a form of torture, then Bram Stoker tortured me with his book Dracula.)

Actually, I don't disagree with you at all. As far as formal logic is concerned, and especially that based on crisp sets, his "experiment" is junk. The crucial point, and the reason why I tossed it up in his thread, was his use of an experimental / experiential test as a way to reinforce his "authority". Did it "prove" that waterboarding was "torture"? Not in any hypothetically objective sense. Then again, "torture" is not a thing that can be perceived as objectively existing in reality (for an analog, see all the problems with defining "abuse"). "Torture" (and "abuse") are socially constructed and negotiated conceptual constructs that have no objective and absolute existence (i.e. they are not crisp sets or objects existing outside of a socially constructed context).

What I was noting that Hitchens was doing was invoking a particular epistemological stance (or ploy, take your pick ;)) in an ongoing debate.

wm

07-09-2008, 06:48 PM

One of these days, we have to sit down and do a comparison between formal logic and semantic or emotional logic - preferably combined with a series of optics experiments :D.
Only if those optics experiments involve aiming and projecting some pointy objects with flights at a bristle board (AKA a round of darts) in an atmosphere conducive to quaffing fermented malted effervescent beverages (AKA beer)

Actually, I don't disagree with you at all. As far as formal logic is concerned, and especially that based on crisp sets, his "experiment" is junk. The crucial point, and the reason why I tossed it up in his thread, was his use of an experimental / experiential test as a way to reinforce his "authority". Did it "prove" that waterboarding was "torture"? Not in any hypothetically objective sense. Then again, "torture" is not a thing that can be perceived as objectively existing in reality (for an analog, see all the problems with defining "abuse"). "Torture" (and "abuse") are socially constructed and negotiated conceptual constructs that have no objective and absolute existence (i.e. they are not crisp sets or objects existing outside of a socially constructed context).

What I was noting that Hitchens was doing was invoking a particular epistemological stance (or ploy, take your pick ;)) in an ongoing debate.
I agree. What concerns me is how many folks may have been taken in by the ploy. :eek:

marct

07-09-2008, 06:59 PM

Only if those optics experiments involve aiming and projecting some pointy objects with flights at a bristle board (AKA a round of darts) in an atmosphere conducive to quaffing fermented malted effervescent beverages (AKA beer)

Couldn't have a proper academic discussion without them - especially the beer :D.

I agree. What concerns me is how many folks may have been taken in by the ploy. :eek:

Yeah, and it does happen. My suspicion is that he is doing this as a form of auto da fey (sp?) in order to justify backing off of support for it. Good social theatre... :wry:.

wm

07-09-2008, 09:36 PM

My suspicion is that he is doing this as a form of auto da fey (sp?) in order to justify backing off of support for it. Good social theatre... :wry:.
Allows him never to have been wrong as well--just "previously less aware about what waterboarding really entails"--and to have a foot in the "experience-based" reporting camp that includes all those embedded journalists who file their stories without ever leaving the hotel in Baghdad or the FOB/Green Zone.

Culpeper

07-10-2008, 03:22 AM

Allows him never to have been wrong as well--...

Ah, so he's playing the nihilist card. I see this all the time on the Internet. And I have been to the end of the Internet. Now, before you ask I'll tell you what I found. An extreme form of skepticism, denial of all real existence and the possibility of an objective basis for truth, which is pretty much what I found at the beginning of the Internet. Present company excluded, of course.:)

marct

07-10-2008, 03:29 AM

Ah, so he's playing the nihilist card. I see this all the time on the Internet. And I have been to the end of the Internet. Now, before you ask I'll tell you what I found. An extreme form of skepticism, denial of all real existence and the possibility of an objective basis for truth, which is pretty much what I found at the beginning of the Internet. Present company excluded, of course.:)

You know, I'm wondering about those ads in the top right corner. Culpeper, I got this after your post
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CKDZo52u-PviswEQrAIY7wEyCKJnS72wOIyS

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there once was a reporter who stove for truth...

Ken White

07-10-2008, 03:48 AM

Ah, the song of Diogenes, I'd recognize it anywhere...

Culpeper

07-10-2008, 04:07 AM

You know, I'm wondering about those ads in the top right corner. Culpeper, I got this after your post
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CKDZo52u-PviswEQrAIY7wEyCKJnS72wOIyS

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there once was a reporter who stove for truth...

You may have something there. It is part of the Internet. But when I log in the advertisement is for "Generation Kill". After I post it goes to Star Wars? That ain't right, man.:) See, I told you.

Don't pay attention to how I gave you credit in the first sentence and took it back in the last sentence.:)

Rex Brynen

09-09-2009, 09:43 PM

A thoughtful piece by John Burns on the recent death of NYT translator Sultan Munadi and a British soldier during the successful rescue of NYT reporter Stepehn Farrell:

September 9, 2009, 3:34 PM
John Burns on Those Who Aid War Journalists (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/john-burns-discusses-sultan-munadi/?hp)
By JOHN F. BURNS

Sultan Munadi is dead, and a British paratrooper whose name we may never know. There may also have been other Afghan casualties, perhaps Taliban, perhaps not; that we also don’t know yet, for sure. But from where I am writing this, on a sunny autumn afternoon in rural England, the deaths of Sultan and the British commando seem like a grim black cloud darkening the landscape –- a harbinger, perhaps, for the increasingly grim news that seems to await us all from a war that seems to be worsening by the day, and heading for worse yet unless our political and military leaders can find a way to turn the situation around.

Behind these deaths lie complex and highly emotive issues for those of us who have traveled to war zones for The Times and other news organizations, involving our responsibilities for the lives of the locally employed people who make it possible for us to operate in faraway lands -– interpreters and reporters like Sultan, but also drivers, security guards and domestic staff members; altogether, in the case of The Times, at least 200 people in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years of those two wars.
Beyond that, and far more difficult to weigh, if not impossible, are our responsibilities to the soldiers, Marines and commandos who may be deployed to rescue us, as they were in the case of Stephen Farrell and Sultan in the overnight hours of Tuesday to Wednesday.

I know already, from calls and e-mail messages I have fielded in the hours since the raid outside Kunduz, that these are issues that attract highly charged opinions that tend to polar opposites. There are those who say that reporters are to be admired for their intrepid pursuit of stories like the fuel-tanker bombing in Kunduz, and that local staff members who accompany them are keenly aware of the risks, as we know Sultan was, and that military personnel, too, are aware of the risks they take on operations like the one that led to the deaths of Sultan and the British commando. That was a point made in the statement issued by Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, who said of the commandos engaged in the raid –- which the BBC and The Times of London reported as having been approved personally by the prime minister — that they “knew the risks they were running.”

But we know, too, that there are people, including many who have written into this blog, who will condemn us, as they see it, for willfully exposing our local staff and our potential rescuers to fatal risk in our pursuit –- as our harshest detractors see it — of front-page stories, of journalism prize and of a faux claim to courage for our gung-ho ways.

...

davidbfpo

09-09-2009, 10:14 PM

On the reporter's rescue etc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8246514.stm

davidbfpo

Greyhawk

09-09-2009, 10:38 PM

...from Sultan Munadi here:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/hell-no-i-wont-go/

I have passed the very darkest times of my country, when there was war and insecurity. I was maybe four or five years old when we went from my village into the mountains and the caves to hide, because the Soviets were bombing. I have passed those times, and the time of the Taliban when I could not even go to Kabul, inside my country. It was like being in a prison.

Those times are past now.
That from 2 Sep 09, a few days before his death.

He said the two journalists hid behind a wall as the fighting went around them, and at one point Munadi, a 34-year-old father of two, raised his hands and walked into the open, shouting: "journalist, journalist". But he was shot down by "a hail of bullets".